Presumption of dowry death arises under S.304-B IPC if death occurs within seven years of marriage accompanied by evidence of cruelty related to dowry demands.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1991 dated 24-1-2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the findings and the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge, who had acquitted the appellants from charges under S.304 - B, 498 - A, 306 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short) and under S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short).

2. In this appeal, we have Rammurti (A - 2) and Chandrabhan Singh (A - 4) as appellants before us. They are calling in question the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicting them and sentencing them under S.304 - B IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution which has been substantially accepted by the High Court runs as under:
3.1. Rammurti is the husband of Raj Kumari (the deceased).. Chandrabhan Singh is the younger brother of Rammurti. The marriage between Rammurti and the deceased was solemnised on 10-5-1984. Her death has taken place on 21-5-1987 viz. within seven years from the date of the marriage.
3.2. The death of Raj Kumari, under the suspicious circumstances, was brought to the notice of the jurisdictional police authorities by one Shri Mansingh, Chowkidar of the village. In his information to the police, he had specifically stated that on his way back home from his daughter - in - law's, place, he was told by one Mr. Pratap Singh, that wife of Rammurti has expired. He has also stated that Pratap Singh did not tell him about the cause of the death of Rammurti's wife. He does not stop there. He continues by adding that Pratap Singh had told him that the wife of Rammurti was being cremated.
3.3. Based on the information so furnished, the investigating agency had carried on the investigation by seizing the burnt ash, bloodstained soil and other reminiscences that were found at the place where the deceased was cremated.
3.4. After cremation of the body of the deceased by Rammurti, Chandrabhan Singh and others, information was sent to the parents of the deceased who were living at a distance of about 100 km. After coming to know about the death of his daughter, PW 9, who is none other than the father of the deceased, had requested his elder brother to go over to the place of the deceased and to find out the cause of the death of the deceased. The information was also furnished to PW 10, who is none other than the mother of the deceased.
3.5. Since PW 9's brother did not return from the place of the deceased, PW 9 was constrained to go to the village of the deceased. After coming to know the cause and the manner of the death of the deceased, PW 9 lodged the police complaint before the jurisdictional police authorities.

4. After investigation, the police charge - sheeted Rammurti, Chandrabhan Singh, younger brother of the accused and other close relatives of Rammurti. Since the offence was triable by the Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate placed the case before the learned Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Judge, on the basis of the allegations made in the charge - sheet, framed the charges under S.304 - B read with S.498 - A, and in the alternate, under S.306 and S.201 IPC, and under S.4 of the Act which the appellants denied. Since the accused persons did not plead guilty, the learned Judge commenced the trial.

5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of their case. The accused persons did not lead any evidence whatsoever. The learned Sessions Judge, after recording the statement of the accused persons u